A little conflicted on the price – 60k seems like a lot, and 5% is smaller than the 30% norm that was voted on. But the quality seems good and the team seems amazing .
Are you open to a higher revenue share initially, then lowering it as conclave funds are recovered? So, eg, maybe something like 30% until $5k recovered, 20% until 15k recovered, 10% until the full $60k is recovered, then 5% thereafter?
Are there additional ongoing costs we should anticipate (maintaining servers, …)? What might the costs look like over 1 year after the game is shipped?
How much would it cost to iterate on v1 by adding in new story developments as the lore continues to develop? It’s unclear to me if the ‘weekly and monthly updates’ mentioned in the revenue model are included in the one-time $60k, or if there will be costs associated with ongoing updates.
Could we take the $5k for marketing out of this proposal? We can def have proposals around marking initiatives later on.
Are there other ways to break down the deliverables and sequence the payments as things are delivered? $40k upfront seems like a lot. It also seems like the F2P web2 game might be a good first deliverable. Maybe we could ship the web2 game, see what the adoption is like, then discuss iterations and Web3 features later? Maybe we could split the payment up based on delivery of different game modes (Story mode, endless mode, …)? Or different sets of features?
Some concerns based on previously funded games
In the past a game was a little delayed and we needed to reprioritize the original objectives vs bug fixes. It might be helpful to give a more detailed timeline of deliverables, and a plan for dealing with risks/delays. (But this is a great initial proposal!)
Ideally we could keep frictions low if other community developers want/need to work on this. If for some reason the original dev team for this game disbands, how could we ensure the game can continue to be developed, released, and potentially the new developers could benefit from future revenues if needed?
Is the 95% revenue for the original game devs contingent on continued development (updates after lore drops, bug fixes, potentially new feature requests, …)?
Aiming is a gameplay mechanic we’ve played around to emulate games like Soulstone Survivors and 20 minutes til dawn. I think it could be fun if 1-2 weapons unique weapons utilize this mechanic, but I do think it takes away from individual weapon attack patterns.
I would love help with art! I’ve seen your recent pixel work and it’s amazing!
Hi isk! Great to finally chat; I’ve seen you around Twitter!
A bulk of the 60k is for Rama and me to focus on the development cycle of this game instead of looking elsewhere for income and losing time. The demo posted is a proof of concept in light of the full-fledged experience we will create! Typical indie game dev costs have a median range of 100 - 300k; we’ll definitely be on the lower side with our 2D approach and use of talented contacts!
To get to your specific questions:
I’d be down for a progressive rev-sharing model if it makes the conclave feel more comfortable with the funding, and I think it’s a great suggestion! A linear scaling model that doesn’t impact future game development but also returns value to the conclave would be great.
The game will be server-hosted, but we’d start small and scale accordingly; I’d initially look for server costs to be 1.5k - 2k yearly.
Continued costs to develop the game after V1 is paid for via game sales or in-game sales, depending on what rev model we and the conclave can agree upon. If we go the paid games route having new DLC additions to continue the story and add weapons and characters would be a blast. By monthly and weekly updates, I’m referring to myself keeping the community abreast of how development is going! Showing off newly composed music, monsters, weapons, and game modes!
I’d prefer to keep the budget as intact as possible, 60k is already a small amount in the greater scheme of developing a game, and if the conclave doesn’t want to utilize funds for marketing, then I can find other places to utilize 5k.
Personal would prefer to give Rama a bit of a runway instead of immediately demanding deliverables! 40k would give us 4-6 months to get music, art, and the game in a great spot for an early access release. Once that’s delivered, we can move forward with the V1.0!
For sure, we can work on a more detailed breakdown of features and game builds. I would love to keep things as flexible as possible for Rama’s sake!
No issues with leaving the game open-source for others to make their own mods and games!
The OG base game developed by Rama and I will continue to receive revenue from the said game that we create; any iterations or derivative games developed with our source code can be monetized and built by whomever.
Steam has pretty light enforcement of the NFT thing.
Awful game, but this thing is entirely an NFT game with links to its NFT Twitter / Discord and requiring wallet connection and token ownership to play. It’s been living uncontested on Steam since August 2021.
There are other examples if you dig them up.
Though, assuming WAGDIE: YWNS isn’t an “NFT Game” in the sense that it’s all about token ownership / farming, and there’s actually a decent game in there only enhanced a bit by token ownership, then I don’t think it’ll cause any commotion if it’s integrated tastefully.
Or, as @b33f_eth suggested; launch a version on Steam that doesn’t have any NFT integration.
If the NFT integration is the be-all-end-all of the experience, then we could also hit up EPIC and seek some sort of exclusivity deal. They’d pay a bag of cash up front if they like the game, are pretty pro-NFT, and there’s a second bag of cash if they ever want to make it their free game of the week.
Mutually happy to chat! And thanks for the quick reply.
Awesome, interested to hear what the rest of the conclave thinks here.
Should 1.5-2k/year be included in the proposal?
4-6. Yeah I’d appreciate a more detailed breakdown of features and game builds, maybe as milestones for each month. Sorry if this comes off as demanding deliverables! – I’m more trying to keep realistic expectations / anticipate what would be prioritized if there are unexpected delays, and assess if anything risks getting cut or needing additional funding or additional time. Happy to be flexible as the project progresses, and I’d probably still support the proposal for $40k upfront!
I’m really excited by this proposal and I have full confidence in the team. Agree with others on negotiating the 5% back to conclave. Perhaps we could increase the amount in exchange for DAO support / services (like art, co-marketing, etc.).
I posted these in Discord, but also laying out here for posterity and as a point of information for all those whove never seen such a thing.
The following are industry standard publishing agreements for indie games. Raw Fury is a leader in the space, and they routinely get top-talent.
On a $60k dev proposal, here’s how their structure would break down:
Developer gets $60k broken out into monthly or milestone chunks
Publisher marks that up by 15% (dev now owes $69k)
Publisher adds on marketing spend (let’s call it $11k for simplicity)
100% of all revenues from the game go to publisher until $80k is paid back
After all $80k is paid back, then developer gets 70% of everything thereafter.
All of this is net, after most distributors (Steam, Nintendo, Apple, etc) take their 30%.
Now… there are definitely more agreeable terms than this, but it’s not far from most.
For example, Whitethorn doesn’t markup, and has flexible percentages during recoup:
That Whitethorn deal also comes with a 2 year limit on publisher return post-profit. After they’ve recouped their investment they only have 2 years to make profit on the title before it all reverts to developer.
For the record:
SWIM signed two publishing agreements in their time, and prefers independence.
I’m on board with this. Very initial reaction was “half of the treasury, sheesh” … but the reaction and input from people more knowledgeable about this space than me, reassures me that there is a lot of potential here. As long as the business model is sound, I say we go for it and get this game rocking.